Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10
 81 
 on: August 19, 2015, 10:59:41 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by 🐍
Sorry, I meant "notarios" not notaries. Notaries are fine.
The Spanish speaking nonlawyers helping illegal immigrants illegally? Yeah, I recall my immigration law lawyer calling them a "necessary evil".
My personal feeling (and this goes a step deeper) is that the rules of professional procedure say we can't help someone CONTINUE an illegal act. So, I'm all for helping illegal immigrants become legal, or even just help them with unrelated issues, but the practices out there with fully licensed lawyers who openly admit that their practice exists to help illegal immigrants find ways to avoid getting caught and continue to stay illegally (I have met a fair share of self righteous ones and I know so have all of you no doubt) should be suspended for violating prof procedure. Yes its not equate to murder or the serious "crimes", but its still an act against the law. People love to go "but they came here legally and just didn't leave on time" I get that. And "its a civil issue". Sometimes that's true, worth noting not always, but for sure a good chunk of the time, ok. But its still an ongoing violation of the law. It blows my mind that we go "on this for political reasons, we'll treat this one different".  Especially the ones actively in hiding, insert any other non legal act with people seeking advice on how to avoid law enforcement officers.........it seems transparent.

 82 
 on: August 19, 2015, 08:14:28 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by Groundhog
So, um, yeah. This is why I don't find your facts very credible. More importantly, though, getting back to the OP, I have followed politics long enough to not get too concerned about day-to-day. For example, the reason that Christie is doomed isn't because of bridgegate- it's because he has no GOP support- either with the establishment any more (he burned those, um, bridges) and certainly not with the base.

Would you say he burned those "tunnels" of support?

 83 
 on: August 19, 2015, 04:44:09 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Maintain FL 350
Sorry, I meant "notarios" not notaries. Notaries are fine.

 84 
 on: August 19, 2015, 03:46:20 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Maintain FL 350
To some (limited) extent, this already goes on. There are "document preparation" services which facilitate stuff like no-contest divorces.

I have mixed feelings on this one. Although I agree that there are simple legal issues which you probably don't need a JD to handle, someone who is not a lawyer might also miss important issues embedded within the seemingly "simple" issue. This could result in an involuntary waiver of otherwise legitimate claims, that sort of thing. So even then, I think there would have to be some sort of licensing or certification.

In CA we have a problem with "notaries" which the state bar has been trying to address. They are common in Latin America, but have a bad reputation here for engaging in UPL. Helping to fill out a form is one thing, but giving bad legal advice is another. Again,  think there would have to be some way to monitor such services.

I have heard this proposal floated by various libertarians. It would involve some combination of the following-
-Anyone can practice law. No restrictions. No UPL charges.
-Changing the various rules and statutes that privilege attorneys.
-People that want to learn what they are doing can go to school, etc. There could be voluntary organizations (such as the ABA) that an attorney could apply to, or take an exam with, and then advertise. "I'm ABA-certified!"
-Use the tort system (malpractice) to enforce standards.

This is the problem I have with ideologically based solutions. They aren't practical. The average person has no clue what ABA certification is, and it would be ridiculously long and expensive to let the tort system take care of it. A much easier solution is just require an exam!

 85 
 on: August 19, 2015, 03:23:31 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Citylaw
I do think I saw some idea about that floating around with the California-Bar. Certain areas of the law people need representation i.e. Family Law.   Family Law is by no means rocket science and anyone with a J.D. for the majority of cases could fill out the appropriate Judicial Council Forms and if they had a stint of ethics they might eve tell both parents in a custody battle that every dime and minute you both spend and court is time and money not going to your kid.

From my understanding of the difference between Osteophatic Medicine and a full M.D. it would be a similar setup. You don't need a brain surgeon to tell a Hypochondriac that the small wart on their hand is not terminal cancer and so on.

The Osteopathist is competent and knows a lot, but just not as much as the full M.D.

The law already does this for Patent Law and screens many licensed lawyers from this process. So minimizing standards for less complex, but more emotionally charged areas of the law might be a good idea.

 86 
 on: August 19, 2015, 02:43:50 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by loki13
Pie, I almost can't believe that ANY lawyer would actually disagree with the notion of requiring a comprehensive exam to get a license to practice law. We can agree that the bar exam could be better administered and needs a make over, but no exam at all? Seriously?

I have heard this proposal floated by various libertarians. It would involve some combination of the following-
-Anyone can practice law. No restrictions. No UPL charges.
-Changing the various rules and statutes that privilege attorneys.
-People that want to learn what they are doing can go to school, etc. There could be voluntary organizations (such as the ABA) that an attorney could apply to, or take an exam with, and then advertise. "I'm ABA-certified!"
-Use the tort system (malpractice) to enforce standards.

Now, I don't buy this for a number of reasons. It gets really vague around (2) - (4). And I think that the licensing is for the protection of the consumer, and given the information asymmetry, this would be a very, very bad idea. But I have heard it.

What I would be more amenable to is loosening the UPL strictures. There are certain things that, perhaps, a fully licensed attorney is not needed for. I realize that I'm arguing against self-interest, but devolving certain extremely basic legal services might be worth exploring.

 87 
 on: August 19, 2015, 01:41:30 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Maintain FL 350
Pie, I almost can't believe that ANY lawyer would actually disagree with the notion of requiring a comprehensive exam to get a license to practice law. We can agree that the bar exam could be better administered and needs a make over, but no exam at all? Seriously?

Do you think that everyone you went to law school with was competent to practice law as soon as they graduated? Definitely not the case in my experience.

If you don't like the FAA example (which does require both written and cockpit tests, BTW), then how about CPAs or real estate brokers? Do you think they should be allowed to do people's taxes and transfer property based on nothing more than their degree?

Historically, the bar exam is a much more crucial part of the licensing scheme than the JD. Abraham Lincoln didn't even have to attend law school, but he still had to pass the Illinois bar. The public has a right to know that licensed attorneys are at least minimally competent.

As to your point about lawyers not having that much power, I wholeheartedly disagree. A lawyer can ruin someone's life, cost them millions, or cost them their freedom. The potential impact is far greater than many other professions which require a licensing exam.

 88 
 on: August 19, 2015, 01:09:41 PM 
Started by Consigliere3 - Last post by Citylaw
Most important of all just take the test. Study your ass-off and as Loki points out plenty of people just buy books and study for it, while others do a Prep Course. I did the former, but if you have the time and money I don't see any harm in taking a Prep Class.

It is also important to realize odds are your not going to get a 180 on the LSAT. I hope you do, but there is a 99% chance you will not finish in the top 1% of test takers. More likely than not you will get somewhere between 150-160, which will allow you to get into numerous law schools. You will again be certain that you will finish in the top 10% at your law school, but again 90% chance you won't finish in the top 10%.   Basically, law school will not make you feel like a special snowflake you will probably get a solid LSAT score and probably finish in the middle of your class at an ABA Law School and pass the bar on your first try.

Getting your first job will be a female dog and you will be overworked and underpaid. If you pay your dues for years and enjoy the practice of law you can likely have a good legal career, but it is not some get rich quick skeem.

However, many people never do the first step of simply taking the LSAT and put it off time and time again, which puts their whole life on hold. Study as hard as possible for a few months show up and take the exam if you get a 140 law school is probably not for you. If you get between 150-180 you can get into an ABA school and I would be on my description above happening, but maybe you will finish as Valedictorian at Harvard and taking Scalia's job when he retires, but I wouldn't be on your or anyone else to have that fact scenario play out.

 89 
 on: August 19, 2015, 01:09:09 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by loki13
This is, quite literally, too much fun!
"All the ad hominem in the world doesn't change the fact that is NOT a tested crimpro question"

From the MBE, here are the list of topics tested that you might find relevant-
V. Constitutional protection of accused persons
A. Arrest, search and seizure
B. Confessions and privilege against
self-incrimination
C. Lineups and other forms of identification
D. Right to counsel
E. Fair trial and guilty pleas
F. Double jeopardy
G. Cruel and unusual punishment
H. Burdens of proof and persuasion

From personal experience, I can tell you that this is not only a favorite of the MBE (it's an easily adjudicated question for multi-state), it's also a common fact pattern within states, and tends to come up on the essays. Are you sure you took the bar exam?

"And whats up with you arguing against your self on amendments? Who prior to that exact moment even mentioned them in any way?"
Because I assumed the issue was pretty obvious? It's sort of like, if I state, "The City Council passes an ordinance prohibiting the burning of the American flag," I don't think I have to specifically state, "And that's the First Amendment, via the 14th Amendment, and you might want to look at Texas v. Johnson." Or if I talk about a company requiring janitors to have a college diploma, I don't need to go through the history of Title VII, Griggs v. Duke Power, and I certainly don't need to describe McDonnell Douglas. At least, I hope not.

"I call troll. Im done with you."

The last refuge of someone who just can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong. I suggest working on that. It's a valuable skill in practice. The most common error for most attorneys is a refusal to acknowledge error when it is obvious. It can have disastrous repercussions- for example, when it is obvious to the Court.


 90 
 on: August 19, 2015, 12:58:41 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Citylaw
A little harsh, but the point of a licensing exam any licensing exam is to protect the public. To a lawyer anyone can be a lawyer it is not hard, because after all we choose to be lawyer. I have a lot of friends who are doctors and they think it is easy being a doctor, but are amazed that I passed the bar, etc I conversely am amazed that they became doctors.

I also have friends that are pilots they think anyone could be pilot again not something I could learn.

The point is that the bar should be and is hard. Medical school should be and is hard. Being a Police Officer should require an extensive background check and it does. Becoming a pilot should be hard and it is. So on and so on.

I think shortening the bar, because people were complaining about its difficulty is a bad decision, but obviously the people in charge of making the decisions think otherwise. There are reasons to make the change, but reasons not to.

Perhaps with this shortened exam it could be the difference between Osteopathic medicine and an actual M.D. 

I get that there are plenty of times when someone needs a lawyer to provide basic info, such as in Loki's point about the friend being charged with a crime. Any lawyer would know to tell your client/friend/etc that is being held to not stay anything other than clearly say "I want a lawyer" to invoke your right to counsel and not incriminate themselves. Not rocket science, but Jay-Z in 99 Problems, but a bi**ch ain't one ain't passed the bar, but he knows a little bit can attest to.

Apparently, this will go to the California Supreme Court for a final decision and we will see what happens. I think a three day-exam sucks, but it is a good way to keep people out. Honestly, if I could pass the bar anyone with enough competence to practice law can.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10